[danshan11]

now that is funny, thanks for the laugh

I will give you the correct answer
who knows no one knows he could be lucky he could be superman but with that information we have no idea and that is my point how ROI is irrelevant to skill and cannot be used to measure skill in a small sample size

can you get +ROI without wins?

[danshan11]

the real point is you can have a guy with 1000 games and a 54% win rate on even money games and he could still be a long term loser and that is all the sim shows us. 4 out of 20 times a "lucky guy" can be a winner. The ONLY measuring stick that would give me any impression he is skilled is if his long term CLV over those 1000 games showed an edge against the line, there is no other way that we currently have or is there and if there is so what is it?

[Jayvegas420]

3 pages later & you still don't have a real point
Post #72 is barely legible

[MMXVII]

Wtf is this thread?

[danshan11]

I am kinda confused on the kinds of threads you want in the think tank, tell you what instead of having a discussion about 1000 sim rolls, why dont we talk about a baseball system using a 3rd time starter on tuesdays coming off 81 hours rest and how that is a winner or even better how Greinke is so good at home and we should tail him, its a lock. LMAO

[MMXVII]

I miss ganchrow.

[danshan11]

thanks for the input everyone, I just read another book real quick, "Quickies overnight betting system" it was a great book and my 3rd book in total. It helped a ton, it sounds like from what I got from the book, you just bet dogs and unders and watch out for traps (not bears either) and also if a college coach gets a dui before the game during the week, take the road favorite. Good stuff and the guy had a great record on the season so it has to be good advice, I think he was a 58% winner over like 1500 picks! So I apologize to all that I was going around saying that the closing line means something and to make sure you have an edge before you bet, that is old news probably not even relevant to the offshore fund savvy guys of today, anyway best of luck all and my next thread will be on how longer shoelaces if you compare them to the price of apple stock shows a 64% return over 14 years and 2500 samples ( IT IS NOT JUST A COINCIDENCE) guy has 2500 samples. LMAO SMH, FAF

[Alfa1234]

The problem with huge sample sizes in betting is...they rarely exist. A system or edge that's been working and beating the closing line for 3 or 4 seasons (and winning) may only produce 100 to 300 total bets. It could very well beat the closing line during those seasons but the market adjusts all the time and will find that inefficiency. Does that mean the system got lucky for a while or does it mean the market identified the inefficiency and adapted? There is no way to know really.

[danshan11]

I 100% agree with that and that is why, I am going with the Bears won 2 in a row and I got a feeling on the Dodgers system instead of being concerned with line value, LOL

[peacebyinches]

The line offered by the books does not reflect a prediction of the game"s outcome rather, it's trying to predict the Public's reaction to that line.

-jayvegas

this is wrong

definitely wrong now

maybe it was correct 20 years ago

How is Jayvegas's original statement wrong? Books want equal action on all sides, so to the book the actual outcome does not matter, they profit from the vig... Are you saying that is not true? I apologize if I misunderstood the context of your post (to be fair though, there seems to be a lot of miscommunication happening in the Think Tank these days...)

[Alfa1234]

How is Jayvegas's statement wrong? Books want equal action on all sides, so to the book the actual outcome does not matter, they profit from the vig... Are you saying that is not true? I apologize if I misunderstood the context of your post (to be fair though, there seems to be a lot of miscommunication happening in the Think Tank these days...)

They want that, but the percentage of games where they actually end up with a balanced book is very low. That does not mean they are actively looking for a team to be backed, it just means they end up wanting a certain side to win in most games. They are probably on the wrong side of that 50% of the time but that doesn't matter as the sheer volume of bets combined with the juice makes sure they always win.

[danshan11]

They want that, but the percentage of games where they actually end up with a balanced book is very low. That does not mean they are actively looking for a team to be backed, it just means they end up wanting a certain side to win in most games. They are probably on the wrong side of that 50% of the time but that doesn't matter as the sheer volume of bets combined with the juice makes sure they always win.

this is a very true statement, it is simply impossible to balance wagers on Patriots VS Raiders ever at any line because bettors bet irrationally and the line does not mean much to them. 99% of the time the books get stuck with the Raiders heavy but they still win because the line is over adjusted with margin to remain profitable. this is also why the analysis of where the money is going and the "sharp forecasts" and anything that says what bettors have bet means nothing to the result. the only thing that truly matters is if you have an edge on that game on either side

[peacebyinches]

I think we are in agreement for the most part Alfa and danshan, but a couple of things I just want to clarify here and would like your opinions/insights. First, Alfa:

They want that, but the percentage of games where they actually end up with a balanced book is very low. That does not mean they are actively looking for a team to be backed, it just means they end up wanting a certain side to win in most games. They are probably on the wrong side of that 50% of the time but that doesn't matter as the sheer volume of bets combined with the juice makes sure they always win.

So to me this seems a little contradictory. I get that there will rarely ever be a purely 50/50 split of money wagered on both sides, but like you mentioned at the end of your statement, with the juice, they always win. This is inherently what I meant by having equal money on both sides (again, I understand that it is hardly ever 50 grand on team A, 50 grand on team B) but the wagers will fall within a close enough margin so that the juice ensures a net gain.

When you say "it just means they end up wanting a certain side to win in most games" are you simply saying:
If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B win, the book profits $3000? I get that this is the case most, if not almost every time, but what I would firmly argue against is a claim that books would frequently find themselves in a situation such as:

If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B wins, the book loses $5000. I'm sure it happens occasionally, it has to, but ultimately the book would never want this to happen (in their perfect world).

So assuming that you were not referring to the latter scenario, where the book is essentially taking the role of the gambler, I find the first part of the statement:

"the percentage of games where they actually end up with a balanced book is very low."

...to be a little misleading, since on most every game the book has sufficiently balanced the action where they are still profiting from the vig.

I think danshan is echoing these thoughts, but let me know if I am mistaken.

[danshan11]

the thing is the book is not in a position to profit on every game but they still kinda do

they sell 50% winners at 52% that is a winner period, it does not matter which side they are on, in a perfect world they want 50/50 action on all games but that is impossible example Raiders/Pats scenario.

not every bet is profitable, they do take positions on games many games, they are gamblers just like us accept they have juice.
this is the exact reason real pro bettors worry about nothing more than the closing line. Books do what all of us want to do, they get in with a real 50% (+100) chance at the price of a 48% chance (+110).
Bettor A bets at book Raiders +6 at -110 this means the book got Patriots -6 at +110
assuming +6 is +100 (50-50 chance) having Pats at +110 is good whether the book evens out or not with action on both sides
Bettor A takes Raiders +6 -110 Bettor B takes Pats -6 -110 so the book has Raiders +110 and Pats +110 and either way they win even if this game they got 10k on raiders in and 5k on Pats because in the long haul the winner is 50/50

[semibluff]

I think we are in agreement for the most part Alfa and danshan, but a couple of things I just want to clarify here and would like your opinions/insights. First, Alfa:



So to me this seems a little contradictory. I get that there will rarely ever be a purely 50/50 split of money wagered on both sides, but like you mentioned at the end of your statement, with the juice, they always win. This is inherently what I meant by having equal money on both sides (again, I understand that it is hardly ever 50 grand on team A, 50 grand on team B) but the wagers will fall within a close enough margin so that the juice ensures a net gain.

When you say "it just means they end up wanting a certain side to win in most games" are you simply saying:
If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B win, the book profits $3000? I get that this is the case most, if not almost every time, but what I would firmly argue against is a claim that books would frequently find themselves in a situation such as:

If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B wins, the book loses $5000. I'm sure it happens occasionally, it has to, but ultimately the book would never want this to happen (in their perfect world).

So assuming that you were not referring to the latter scenario, where the book is essentially taking the role of the gambler, I find the first part of the statement:

"the percentage of games where they actually end up with a balanced book is very low."

...to be a little misleading, since on most every game the book has sufficiently balanced the action where they are still profiting from the vig.

I think danshan is echoing these thoughts, but let me know if I am mistaken.

In my experience most events have an outcome which is a loss for the book. The trick is to manage that outcome so it doesn't escalate. If a book lays -110 on a coin flip and takes $2M in stakes there's only a $90K window where they're in profit regardless of outcome. On small stakes events it's not a big issue. If that $2M coin flip wager produces a +$290K outcome and a -$200K outcome the book isn't going to worry unless it's going to win on less than 41% of those flips. The line can be changed to +100, -120. A book doesn't want the outcome getting to +$490K , -$400K because 1) the hit is bigger and 2) the threat level rises to 45%, (potential loss X 100% / Potential profit + potential loss). How the book reacts depends on how financially strong the book is and how large the potential hit is. Ideally books want to hedge out of such positions because the book's priority is to avoid a string of hits. It can better to lay +104, -124 to reduce the potential negative outcomes rather than become the gambler.

[danshan11]

I imagine you are talking about a very specific super event, I hardly think any book has 2 million on a random game. I think books dont hedge very often at all and if they do they hedge with line movement

[danshan11]

if you have adequate bankroll and can make a huge number of plays at +EV anyone including a book will take those plays, you cant take those plays if you cant ride the variance wave and cant bankroll it long term. if someone puts a book at an under 100 mark they might leverage other than that they just ride the wave knowing they have edge via juice!

[Alfa1234]

I think we are in agreement for the most part Alfa and danshan, but a couple of things I just want to clarify here and would like your opinions/insights. First, Alfa:



So to me this seems a little contradictory. I get that there will rarely ever be a purely 50/50 split of money wagered on both sides, but like you mentioned at the end of your statement, with the juice, they always win. This is inherently what I meant by having equal money on both sides (again, I understand that it is hardly ever 50 grand on team A, 50 grand on team B) but the wagers will fall within a close enough margin so that the juice ensures a net gain.

When you say "it just means they end up wanting a certain side to win in most games" are you simply saying:
If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B win, the book profits $3000? I get that this is the case most, if not almost every time, but what I would firmly argue against is a claim that books would frequently find themselves in a situation such as:

If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B wins, the book loses $5000. I'm sure it happens occasionally, it has to, but ultimately the book would never want this to happen (in their perfect world).

So assuming that you were not referring to the latter scenario, where the book is essentially taking the role of the gambler, I find the first part of the statement:

"the percentage of games where they actually end up with a balanced book is very low."

...to be a little misleading, since on most every game the book has sufficiently balanced the action where they are still profiting from the vig.

I think danshan is echoing these thoughts, but let me know if I am mistaken.

I'm pretty sure 90% of the games they have unbalanced action like mentioned above and they are rooting for a certain side. The action is rarely balanced so they do end up on a winning or losing side most of the time. That however does not matter with the vig. The sheer number of games means that at the end of the week or month they will end up on the green. They'll also lay off, as mentioned already above and if at all possible, games where they would be at risk of a big hit.

Something is also wrong with this statement:
"If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B wins, the book loses $5000." It's actually: If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B wins, the book loses $4500. Big difference long term.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

The sharp books will inevitably have unbalanced outcomes on occasions - they have a clearer picture of where the sharp money is, so it makes sense.

Soft books that are large enough to cope with the variance do this too, but for a different reason: the most profitable pricing for a rec book can be quite far from true probabilities.

[peacebyinches]

Very interesting discussion, and I think I see a potentially drastic difference in our underlying assumptions regarding the typical approaches taken by sportsbooks to maximize their profit. Let me attempt to flesh out what I think might be at the root of this, danshan.

(and please correct me if I am misinterpreting your views, I certainly don't want to wrongly attribute your stance on these matters)

You say one thing that I'm still not clear about:

they do take positions on games many games, they are gamblers just like us accept they have juice.

What are you really saying when you claim that sportsbooks are operating as gamblers?
Is it the case similar to the example from before, where sportsbooks might have some small imbalance in action for some games, and therefore they would stand to profit slightly more from one outcome than the other? In this scenario the sportsbook is not operating as a gambler at all really. They are just like any business that sells a product or service, making their profits from the fees they charge for each wager, just like a stock brokerage such as Merrill Lynch charges you a fee for going out and buying stocks for you, except instead of stocks the book is giving you the opportunity to make money from betting on a football game and the fee they get is the vig.

That is option 1, involving no more added risk than there is operating any regular old business.

Or, are you saying, again similar to an example mentioned before, that due to the nature of the business, some games are just not going to have equal action, so there is some added risk, but as I think semibluff was explaining in his post, is not fine as long as it is not devastating, whereby the risk is mitigated by hedging, maybe at another book, or line movements (which are still not a full proof way to hedge, from the book's perspective, but should typically even out the action)
Here, even with these losses, assuming that over time they will come out on the profiting side of these risky, "potential loss situations" almost as much they do the losing side (still keeping the losses manageable of course) I argue that even this added risk does not mean the sportsbook is operating as a gambler, the same way us handicappers using their service are, since once again, the action is still balanced enough that the juice ensures long term profit.

What I am getting at here, is that it seems as though people think that the line and the odds are set in a way that is supposed to indicate the actual outcome of the game, where the book changes the line based on having more information than the public. I think this is giving the book too much credit. When you bet on one side or the other, you are betting against the public, and not against the book.

One final misunderstanding:

Something is also wrong with this statement:
"If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B wins, the book loses $5000." It's actually: If team A wins, the book profits $5000, if team B wins, the book loses $4500. Big difference long term.

You are assuming incorrectly what I was meant by losing in that statement. "Loss" in that statement was meant to be an example of actual net loss by the company, and can be thought as being independent from vig for the sake of simplicity. E.g. the book has collected $15000 from all wagers on the game. $5000 on team A, $10000 on team B. At the end of the game, the book pays out. If team A wins, they keep the $10000 from the wagers on team B, and pay out $5000 they owe to all wagers on team A. If team B wins, vice-versa, again this is what I meant by that hypothetical situation in order to clarify what people mean when claiming that the book is "gambling".

[danshan11]

as irrelevant as this conversation is, it has some value in one thing only

BOOKS make money only two ways, splitting action for commission and beating the line
how you ask simple
Guy A bets Yankees for 100 Guy B bets Dodgers for 100 whoever wins gets 190 and book keeps 10
Guy A bets Yankees for 100 (-110)Guy B bets Dodgers for 20 (-110, book is on the hook for 80 bucks so this is scary bad horrible right but you forgot the juice so now both guys paid a dime margin
so the book now technically has the Dodgers for 80 bucks at +110 on an even money line (this is beating the line)
flipping coins at +110 is a win no matter how you break it down.
Either scenario works and one more point
BOOKS are way way way way way smarter than ALL bettors including sharps, why you ask, because the books have as good as most models to put up a line and have some of the best bettors in the world that they track adjusting it for them all day and as fast as information comes in. BOOKs are SMARTER than ALL bettors for this reason alone, they basically take bets from everyone and keep track who crushes the line long term and move their numbers based on what that group of experts does. Believe me if they are light on Dodgers but most of their sharps are heavy on Dodgers, they will quietly sit back and say PLAY ball (screw the hedge or laying it off or moving the line to get other side action)

[peacebyinches]

The sharp books will inevitably have unbalanced outcomes on occasions - they have a clearer picture of where the sharp money is, so it makes sense.

I very much disagree with this entire notion, books don't gamble (see my post above). First, how do books determine where the "sharp" money is? Even if the books operationalized the definition of "sharp money" then how do they use this information? In all seriousness, it would be very useful to know how such a process works. But even if you get past this step, when would there really be clear enough examples where the "sharp" money is so overwhelmingly on one side it is worth adding risk to an otherwise sure profit. Also, in this hypothetical you have another problem in that you have categorically assigned all wagers as either "sharp" or "not-sharp". Is some sharp money "sharper" than the other "sharp money"? That would be really tough to model... but I am open to ideas.

[danshan11]

how good do you think you would be if you had 10 of the biggest and longest lasting sportsbettors giving you their picks before the games start! How bright do you think your future would be. I bet if you just backed their consensus picks you would be RICH RICH RICH. You better believe books gamble but they also know very clearly nobody wins long term at high limits.

[Alfa1234]

You guys are making this way too complicated.

As said before, if a book is risking 10k if one side wins and winning 15k if the other side wins, they don't care. They are still in the business of gambling but at the end of the day they are basically risking 10k to win 15k on a coinflip (50/50 proposition). This will easily be in their favour long term. All thanks to the juice.

Regarding sharp money...the only book still using that is Pinnacle. Everybody else follows their lines, no matter how you look at it. You can bet the line as many times as you want with 10k people at any other book and that book will only move it's line a little bit, but they will NEVER set the market. Only Pinnacle does.

Pinnacle uses smart money to guide how much they should move a line. If a sharp client bets the limit it will move the line after 1 bet by quite a bit. If a non-sharp account bets the limit it will still move the line, but not every time and by not as much. This can be demonstrated easily by betting the same line from a fresh account at limit (100% limit) or from a Sportmarket account which will have 50% of that limit. Odds are the sharp sportmarket agent account will move the line more even though it's only for 50% of the amount. I see this happen every day.

[danshan11]

the real moral is this and only this
beating the line is how EVERYONE that wins wins period!

[HeeeHAWWWW]

I very much disagree with this entire notion, books don't gamble (see my post above).

Well, you call it gambling, I call it taking advantage of superior information :-) They have a huge advantage over the rest of us, and indeed over just about all other books, in seeing where the money is flowing.

Not talking massively unbalanced books here, probably just a few % here and there, or perhaps often just loading the juice all on one side. Likely it's mostly algorithmic.

First, how do books determine where the "sharp" money is?

This part of it would be fairly easy I think, if you have the data. Fortunately, pinnacle have 20 years of that, an insane number of bets, worth many hundreds of billions of dollars. That's an absolute beauty of a dataset for analysing, and with modern machine learning that's not particularly difficult.

[danshan11]

as irrelevant as this conversation is, it has some value in one thing only

BOOKS make money only two ways, splitting action for commission and beating the line
how you ask simple
Guy A bets Yankees for 100 Guy B bets Dodgers for 100 whoever wins gets 190 and book keeps 10
Guy A bets Yankees for 100 (-110)Guy B bets Dodgers for 20 (-110, book is on the hook for 80 bucks so this is scary bad horrible right but you forgot the juice so now both guys paid a dime margin
so the book now technically has the Dodgers for 80 bucks at +110 on an even money line (this is beating the line)
flipping coins at +110 is a win no matter how you break it down.
Either scenario works and one more point
BOOKS are way way way way way smarter than ALL bettors including sharps, why you ask, because the books have as good as most models to put up a line and have some of the best bettors in the world that they track adjusting it for them all day and as fast as information comes in. BOOKs are SMARTER than ALL bettors for this reason alone, they basically take bets from everyone and keep track who crushes the line long term and move their numbers based on what that group of experts does. Believe me if they are light on Dodgers but most of their sharps are heavy on Dodgers, they will quietly sit back and say PLAY ball (screw the hedge or laying it off or moving the line to get other side action)

this is the cleanest best explanation

[Jayvegas420]

So, when you say that the books are gambling, you're not implying that they're doing it intentionally. As a consequence of unbalanced action... They become Gamblers on particular games?

[danshan11]

So, when you say that the books are gambling, you're not implying that they're doing it intentionally. As a consequence of unbalanced action... They become Gamblers on particular games?

I dont know as a fact but I think it happens very often and more often than not.

I mean I dont know how accurate insights are but if 70% of the money is on Ravens -3 and 70% of money is on Pats -5 it gives the impression they end up betting pretty much every game but what saves them and makes them rich is the number of games they get action on (kills variance) and the vig( which makes every play they are in on a good play(flipping coins at +110)

[Alfa1234]

So, when you say that the books are gambling, you're not implying that they're doing it intentionally. As a consequence of unbalanced action... They become Gamblers on particular games?

I think this is 100% true for 90+% of all games.

[semibluff]

Just to be clear it's far, far, far more common for a book to adjust odds and take sharp money to close the liability levels rather than re-wagering some of their -110, -115 or -120 liabilities with another book at -125. Obviously it's sub-optimal on the book's part to offer +105 about a true +100 proposition but it's an acceptable insurance play. On small-to-medium size markets they won't bother. Directly hedging between bigger books is uncommon to rare because the public tends to bet the same way with all books. A bad outcome for 1 book is likely to be a bad outcome for most or all books.

[danshan11]

why do any of you even care what the books do? The only reason I care and talk about it is because it is living proof that beating the line is how you win and is exactly what books do.
Beat the line hundreds of times a day on different games
gives you edge and variance control, perfect winning scenario. ANyone that says anything different is FOS, casinos do the same thing, they dont wait or bet red chips on another table because one table has more black on it. they know 2-1 at a 48% chance is a winner winner chicken dinner with enough rolls to handle variance and a big enough bankroll (referred to as table limits) they will kick ass, coin flips at +110 ALL DAY LONG!

[peacebyinches]

Well, you call it gambling, I call it taking advantage of superior information :-) They have a huge advantage over the rest of us, and indeed over just about all other books, in seeing where the money is flowing.

Not talking massively unbalanced books here, probably just a few % here and there, or perhaps often just loading the juice all on one side. Likely it's mostly algorithmic.




This part of it would be fairly easy I think, if you have the data. Fortunately, pinnacle have 20 years of that, an insane number of bets, worth many hundreds of billions of dollars. That's an absolute beauty of a dataset for analysing, and with modern machine learning that's not particularly difficult.

I absolutely agree that the dataset would be full of interesting, potentially useful information, and I am glad that you phrased it appropriately (taking advantage of having extra information). I have a feeling Alfa worded it poorly by calling it "gambling". Calling what books do as gambling is like saying that casinos are "gambling" on slot machines when they are programmed to pay off 95 cents for every dollar wagered. To me that is running a profitable business, not gambling. But anyways..

I still have some doubts that books are really factoring in "sharp" money when they set the lines. First, is it necessary? The vig gives them a long term profit that is essentially guaranteed, how much would they really mess with that? There would have to be a significant benefit for the added risk, which is my second point --- how useful and usable are an individual's bet patterns going to ultimately be for tweaking your line. Imagine that you had this data set, how would you use it? I mean literally, think about how you would implement a "sharp money" component into your model. Doing so comes with 2 things off the top of my head that make this problematic, even with the best machine learning algorithms available: 1. it assumes that there are indeed long term winners that have placed a sizeable amount of wagers and are continuing to do so. (if they do detect someone who is a long term winner that they feel will continue to win long term, why allow them to continue making wagers in the first place??) and 2. this is almost certainly going to have to be a non parametric that will overfit the data and result in very low, if any use for future predictions.

why do any of you even care what the books do? The only reason I care and talk about it is because it is living proof that beating the line is how you win and is exactly what books do.

This is fundamental in my opinion, and where our thought processes might diverge. You keep saying 'beat the line', but the example you previously made here:

Guy A bets Yankees for 100 (-110)Guy B bets Dodgers for 20 (-110, book is on the hook for 80 bucks so this is scary bad horrible right but you forgot the juice so now both guys paid a dime margin

so the book now technically has the Dodgers for 80 bucks at +110 on an even money line (this is beating the line)
flipping coins at +110 is a win no matter how you break it down.

This sounds like you are making some assumptions here: 1. that the yankees and dodgers have an equal likelihood of winning. (there is a lot more happening here than a coin flip though..) 2. the public will be on the wrong side 50% of the time

Why is this the case?

[danshan11]

books know the line is fair, yes there are stale lines bad lines, injuries but generally the line is fair. if the line was not fair they would not take bets on it, even with juice the line has to be fair or they lose too.
think of roulette lets say they did not know how many numbers are going to be in play if this was the case they could not pay out 35-1, the only way you can run a betting business is to know how many numbers are in play very accurately. So this alone tells us the line is fair. They take a fair line determine what a person will pay for it add that to the price and bingo everybody is happy, they earn the juice by offering a betting service and you are happy to pay it cause you like beer, chicks and betting!

[KVB]

Dan, you do not understand how the marketplace works, how the books operate, and why the line opens where it opens and closes to where it closes.

Just because the book makes a line and you can figure out the vig, does not mean the line is "fair"

Fair lines are just a gauge for mathematicians to have something to work with.

I don't think you could handle the truth about the major sports, I just don't think you will understand what we've done for years in setting lines. It is far out of the scope of your understanding.

The market does not try to "balance" action with "fair" lines, nor do the books who make up the marketplace.

That's not how they make money. They make money by taking positions, using the line to do so, and they make that money over the long term. They are more than willing to pay out to the bettors that understand this as they take in plenty from the rest of the field.

Next thing your going to say is that the best team on the field that day wins, or some fan like nonsense like that.

When you understand that something like the NFL is meant (according to the NFL court arguments) to be entertainment, and that's it, you might start to understand the reality of the situation. Even then,you will likely surrender to the classic Forum attitude that winning is impossible, despite proof otherwise.

The rest is just beating the markets with math, something that can be done year in and year out.

Otherwise, the market wouldn't exist.